Case 1:21-cv-10284-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 187 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY LAURA AND JAMES SAMPSON, ANTHONY VENTURA AND JOANNE FULGIERI VENTURA, ELIZABETH WHEATLEY, and SHIRLEY REINHARD ON HER OWN BEHALF AND ON Civil Action No. BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH REINHARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT situated, Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION f/k/a FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD. Defendants. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs Laura and James Sampson, Anthony Ventura and Joanne Fulgieri Ventura, Elizabeth Wheatley, and Shirley Reinhard, on her own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Kenneth Reinhard, (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action for themselves and on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any 2013-2021 Subaru equipped with an autonomous emergency braking (“AEB”) system that includes “Pre-Collision Braking” and “Reverse Automatic Braking” (“AEB Class Vehicles”) and on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any 2013-2021 Subaru equipped with Lane Keep Assist (“LKA 1 Case 1:21-cv-10284-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 2 of 187 PageID: 2 Class Vehicles”), against Subaru of America, Inc. (“SOA”) and Subaru Corporation, formerly known as Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., (“Subaru Corp.”) (together with SOA, “Subaru” or “Defendants”). The allegations herein are based on personal knowledge as to Plaintiffs’ own experiences and are made as to other matters based on an investigation by counsel, including analysis of publicly available information. 2. Autonomous emergency braking systems are one of the most highly touted advancements in automobile safety. As described by Consumer Reports, with AEB systems installed, “[t]he vehicle stops independently when it senses a crash is imminent to avoid a crash, or to reduce the severity of a crash that can’t be avoided.”1 Forward-oriented systems activate when the car is driving forward, and rearward- oriented systems activate when the car is in reverse.2 When working properly, these systems are intended to reduce the incidence of collisions and the resultant injuries. 3. Subaru’s Pre-Collision Braking, along with Lane Keep Assist, is a part of the “EyeSight Driver Assist Technology” suite of safety features. As described by Subaru on its website3: 1 https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/automatic-emergency-braking-guide/ 2 See id. 3 See https://www.subaru.com/engineering/eyesight.html 2 Case 1:21-cv-10284-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 3 of 187 PageID: 3 4. As further described by Subaru, Pre-Collision Braking, a forward- oriented system, “helps you avoid or reduce frontal impacts by alerting you and applying full braking force in emergency situations,” and “can even bring you to a full stop if necessary.”4 Similarly, Reverse Automatic Braking, a rearward-oriented system, “senses objects behind your Subaru when backing up at a low speed and applies the brakes when necessary.”5 5. While Pre-Collision Braking relies on forward-facing cameras to monitor the area in front of the vehicle, Reverse Automatic Braking relies on 4 ultra- sonic sensors, or radar, to detect objects behind the vehicle. For both systems, if an obstacle is detected, the system is supposed to sound an alarm and flash a warning, and then activate the brakes if the driver does not do so. 4 See id. 5 See “Subaru Reverse Automatic Braking Explained (2020 Updated)” by Subaru (Jun. 25, 2020), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYTshupRY38. 3 Case 1:21-cv-10284-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 4 of 187 PageID: 4 6. The front cameras are also employed by other EyeSight features, including Lane Keep Assist. The cameras are supposed to monitor the road for lane markings and sound alarms if the vehicle strays over the lines or sways between them. If the driver does not respond quickly enough, Lane Keep Assist is supposed to correct the vehicle’s steering to keep the vehicle in the lane. 7. Subaru has widely disseminated within the United States advertising alleging the superior safety of its EyeSight-equipped vehicles. Subaru particularly emphasized the Pre-Collision Braking or forward AEB system described infra. Indeed, Subaru’s car commercials have become ubiquitous on television, promising consumers piece of mind that is said to come from Subaru’s superior commitment to safety and development of the EyeSight systems, which can allegedly prevent your family from needing medical care or keep your easily distracted and inexperienced teenaged driver safe. 8. For these systems to work as intended and advertised, Subaru is responsible for ensuring that its suppliers manufacture the component systems correctly and that they are installed properly at the factory. Subaru is also responsible for ensuring that the AEB System itself has adequate programming to handle real-world driving conditions and that the components systems communicate properly with one another. For example, the front-facing cameras or the rear-facing sensors must communicate information to the braking system and the ABS Control 4 Case 1:21-cv-10284-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 5 of 187 PageID: 5 Module to apply the brakes, they must communicate with the Transmission Control Module (“TCM”) to shift the car into the proper gear, and they must communicate with the Engine Control Module (“ECM”) to limit power from the engine so that car is no longer propelled forward if the system. Calibrating these systems to work together properly is Subaru’s responsibility. 9. Subaru failed to inform Plaintiffs and members of the AEB Class (defined below in Class Action Allegations) before or during the time of sale that the AEB systems in Class Vehicles have manufacturing and workmanship defects including but not limited to poor calibration of the software from multiple control modules, including the ABS Control Module, such that they are prone to activating the brakes when there are no objects in front of the vehicle and/or behind the vehicle when it is backing up. The AEB systems also sometimes fail entirely to activate when there are persons or objects in motion in front of the vehicle. This occurs due to miscommunication between all the systems involved in automatic braking, including the sensors, the brakes, and the transmission (the “AEB System Defect”). The AEB System Defect prevents the AEB Class Vehicles from behaving as designed and advertised in real-world driving conditions. 10. As a result of the AEB System Defect, AEB Class Vehicles will abruptly slow down or stop entirely without driver input when there are no obstacles 5 Case 1:21-cv-10284-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 6 of 187 PageID: 6 in front of or behind the vehicle. This presents a clear-cut safety hazard, increasing the chances of a collision. 11. Conversely, the AEB System also fails to activate in the situations it was designed to detect and mitigate, such as when a pedestrian or vehicle stops abruptly in front of or behind the AEB Class Vehicle. Thus, the AEB System Defect makes the AEB System unpredictable and makes driving the vehicle unsafe. At the same time, the defect renders the system useless when it is most needed. 12. The Lane Keep Assist feature is also defective. Subaru also failed to disclose to Plaintiffs and the members of the LKA Class, before or at the time of sale, that the Lane Keep Assist feature in LKA Class Vehicles has design, manufacturing and/or workmanship defects including but not limited to poor calibration of the software from multiple control modules, including the Power Steering Control Module, such that they attempt to correct the vehicle’s steering when the driver is trying to change lanes, is driving on a road with construction barriers, or if the road has multiple lines due to construction. Further, the Lane Keep Assist system will malfunction and shut down entirely while the vehicle is motion and cannot be used again until the car is restarted (the “LKA Defect” and, together with the AEB System Defect, the “Defects”). The LKA Defect prevents the Class Vehicles from behaving as designed and advertised in real-world driving conditions. 6 Case 1:21-cv-10284-RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 7 of 187 PageID: 7 13. As a result of the LKA Defect, the Lane Keep Assist system in the LKA Class Vehicles jerks the steering wheel without cause. Moreover, the system prevents the vehicle from change lanes and even steers the vehicle into other vehicles. On other occasions, it simply fails to function completely. Thus, the LKA Defect makes the Lane Keep Assist feature makes driving the vehicle unsafe and the operation of vehicle unpredictable for members of the LKA Class. 14. Based on pre-production testing, including design failure mode analysis, quality monitoring team data, quality control audits, early warranty claims, replacement part orders, and consumer complaints to Subaru’s authorized network of dealers, as well complaints to NHTSA, Defendants were aware of the Defects in the Class Vehicles as early as 2012. Despite being aware of the Defects and numerous complaints, Subaru knowingly, actively, and affirmatively failed to disclose the Defects. Further, Defendants actively concealed the existence of the Defects, including in advertising and manuals, which describe the EyeSight, “Pre- Collision Braking”, Reverse Automatic Braking Systems and Lane Keep Assist. Defendants did this to increase profits by selling additional Class Vehicles at inflated prices. 15. Discovery will show that AEB and LKA Class Vehicles utilize the same or substantially identical core vehicle components, and the Defects are the same for all Class Vehicles.